An atheist that doesn't like dawkins. - Atheist Nexus2016-12-09T15:45:11Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/an-atheist-that-doesn-t-like-dawkins?commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A1953032&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noBlasphemy, the FSM exists! LO…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-24:2182797:Comment:19590462012-05-24T01:33:27.848ZLorienhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Lorien
<p>Blasphemy, the FSM exists! LOL</p>
<p>Some may not like Dawkins but Dawkins has always been correct as far as I have read and listened to him.</p>
<p>Having met him 5 times and watched most of the stuff out there, he has never disappointed me with his intelligence. He does hate to be idolized and put on a pedestal. Too bad, he is my hero!</p>
<p>Plus, who else do you know that is married to a female timelord?</p>
<p></p>
<p>RAmen</p>
<p>Blasphemy, the FSM exists! LOL</p>
<p>Some may not like Dawkins but Dawkins has always been correct as far as I have read and listened to him.</p>
<p>Having met him 5 times and watched most of the stuff out there, he has never disappointed me with his intelligence. He does hate to be idolized and put on a pedestal. Too bad, he is my hero!</p>
<p>Plus, who else do you know that is married to a female timelord?</p>
<p></p>
<p>RAmen</p> Sorry, but there are no real…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-24:2182797:Comment:19591812012-05-24T00:39:53.461ZLorienhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Lorien
<p>Sorry, but there are no real paranormal activities. You watch too much TV.</p>
<p>Sorry, but there are no real paranormal activities. You watch too much TV.</p> Though, I didn't have time to…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-23:2182797:Comment:19586292012-05-23T13:20:56.297ZNavitta Nelsonhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/NavittaNelson
<p>Though, I didn't have time to read thru your entire post, I read thru most of it.</p>
<p>I think, I know what you are trying to say. You describe yourself more as agnostic than atheist. Atheist do not believe in a God. Agnostics, as myself, feel we do not know. As an agnostic, I don't know if there is a God but...if there is one, I know he doesn't operate in the capacity we have been taught. There is no diety operating anything in this world. That's evident. However, there could be…</p>
<p>Though, I didn't have time to read thru your entire post, I read thru most of it.</p>
<p>I think, I know what you are trying to say. You describe yourself more as agnostic than atheist. Atheist do not believe in a God. Agnostics, as myself, feel we do not know. As an agnostic, I don't know if there is a God but...if there is one, I know he doesn't operate in the capacity we have been taught. There is no diety operating anything in this world. That's evident. However, there could be some truth to energy of the body. I think some things cannot be explained and there are paranormal activities. But as agnostic, I have to admit some things we just don't have answers to. </p> "For the most part they are B…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-21:2182797:Comment:19571662012-05-21T07:01:11.051ZChris Ruegghttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/ChrisRuegg
<p>"For the most part they are BRILLIANT scientists, and yet they completely discredit anything if it has the slightest lack of extraordinary evidence or if a religious person says it. I may be wrong, but isn't science about looking for the truth, accepting new ideas and testing them, admitting when you are wrong?"</p>
<p></p>
<p>That's not really how science works. Firstly, you need to construct a testable hypothesis that, ideally, will explain, or better explain, certain phenomena in the…</p>
<p>"For the most part they are BRILLIANT scientists, and yet they completely discredit anything if it has the slightest lack of extraordinary evidence or if a religious person says it. I may be wrong, but isn't science about looking for the truth, accepting new ideas and testing them, admitting when you are wrong?"</p>
<p></p>
<p>That's not really how science works. Firstly, you need to construct a testable hypothesis that, ideally, will explain, or better explain, certain phenomena in the natural world. You then test the hypothesis, using what you know and what you find out to update and refine the model. This process continues and undergoes peer review. If the model you have constructed jives with all of the available facts, and the model has significant predictive power, it may be elevated to the status of a theory, at which point it may be accepted.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The way you word it makes it sound like you come up with any old idea and automatically accept it without evidence, then do tests. This is not scientific.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"But it's still a scientific hypothesis, that as of writing this cannot be tested."</p>
<p></p>
<p>If it is untestable, then it is not scientific. It is a claim of knowledge, untestable and unsupported by evidence. A rational and skeptical mind must dismiss this "God hypothesis". One of my favourite shows is "The Atheist Experience" that is broadcast on public access television by the Atheist Community of Austin. On that show, they ask theists (usually Christians) to call in and state what they believe and why they believe it. So far, I have not seen any theist with a decent argument for believing in a God. So it's not that believing in God is an option among multiple choices... it is not an option, if you care about what you believe being demonstrably true.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"We <em>have</em> diss-proven many things that religion spouts or claims in their holy books, but that is disproving an element of the religion, not the existence of a god. Dawkins has admitted this, yet he continuously dismisses any arguments against his views unless they come from one of his fellow atheist scientist buddies."</p>
<p></p>
<p>But the existence of God has never been indicated. Remember, the default position of belief is to not believe a claim unless it is supported by enough evidence to justify the belief. for certain claims, such as "I have a dog", you may be justified in believing that claim, purely on my say so, as whether I have a dog or not has little impact on your world view, or the state of the universe. On the other hand, if I were to claim I had a pet dragon, you would likely demand more proof than merely my say so.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"And everywhere people are trying to convert others into atheism.</p>
<p>A dogma is beginning to form, the atheist that i have observed are lining up to become just like the hardcore religious peoples they claim to be different from."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Atheism is not, and never will be a religion. It is a statement on dis-belief in a god or gods. That's it! If people are coming out as atheists and challenging theists to justify their beliefs, what's wrong with that? If they are like me, where they care about if what they believe is demonstrably true, and that belief informs your actions, then they must care about what other people believe too. In my opinion, this is why atheists have begun to "evangelize", so to speak. The one thing it is not evolving in to is a dogma. there are no doctrines of Atheism that must be followed, other than not believing in a deity. There are also no "holy" figures, like you are making Dawkins or Hitchens out to be. I do agree with much of what they say, but I disagree with them on many points too. I am under no obligation to follow their word or agree with them.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"I joined this site and others with the expectation that I was going to meet people guided by logic, reason, quality evidence (Not just normal evidence.) instead of other's words. and mild = tolerance toward opposing viewpoints as we have nothing to lose if they disagree.</p>
<p>Instead i have found a group of self righteous, key phrase spewing, intolerant, hateful, followers who actively try to change a person's beliefs instead of presenting the alternative and letting that person act accordingly to what they are presented (the backbone of scientific thought and progress)"</p>
<p></p>
<p>Now what, exactly, is "quality" evidence as opposed to "normal" evidence?</p>
<p>Evidence is defined as "that which tends to prove or disprove something". What does quality evidence have that normal evidence does not?</p>
<p>Now in terms of tolerance, we do tolerate peoples rights to believe in whatever garbage they want. That doesn't mean we are not allowed to speak out about why they're wrong, or that we're not allowed to try and change minds. There's a big difference between tolerating someone and treating them like a child and never questioning or challenging their views.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"Ghost for example, I believe that there is somethting to these claims, or at least some of them. Consistent and observable patterns, large amounts of unexplained, undeniable phenomenon (Among some admittedly fake). Are they the spirits of the dead? I doubt it, but I see reason to look into the matter. The same goes for some other supernatural ideas that everyone here seems to hate."</p>
<p></p>
<p>But can you measure or quantify these patterns? Lots of people make all sorts of wild claims, but none of what they say can be replicated under laboratory conditions. When that's the case, these phenomena are untestable, and therefore not believable, at least from a scientific point of view. The reason there is so much hostility towards the idea of Ghosts, etc. is because the proponents of these ideas are either unwilling or unable to provide any supporting evidence whatsoever, yet continually make more untestable and irrational claims, much like religions do.</p>
<div class="luna-Ent"><div class="dndata"><span class="ital-inline"><span id="hotword"><span style="color: #333333; cursor: default;" id="hotword"></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="luna-Ent"><div class="dndata"><span class="ital-inline"><span id="hotword"><span style="color: #333333; cursor: default;" id="hotword"></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="luna-Ent"><div class="dndata"><span class="ital-inline"><span id="hotword"><span style="color: #333333; cursor: default;" id="hotword"></span></span></span></div>
</div> No, none whatsoever. Class i…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-16:2182797:Comment:19536322012-05-16T15:12:14.734ZSpitterhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/sp1tt3r
<p>No, none whatsoever. Class is for the weak. I'm vile and disgusting, hope you dream about me. *kisses*</p>
<p>No, none whatsoever. Class is for the weak. I'm vile and disgusting, hope you dream about me. *kisses*</p> I'm relieved that I'm not the…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-16:2182797:Comment:19534122012-05-16T14:00:45.677ZKerihttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/KeriLeighEller
<p>I'm relieved that I'm not the only one that doesn't like Dawkins. :)</p>
<p>I'm relieved that I'm not the only one that doesn't like Dawkins. :)</p> This will be my final post to…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-16:2182797:Comment:19534792012-05-16T07:37:57.757ZRussell20http://atheistnexus.org/profile/jeremybelcher
<p>This will be my final post to to you. I am ignoring you because you are not worth the effort of formulating a reply and shall continue to ignore you whenever you appear here</p>
<p></p>
<p>This will be my final post to to you. I am ignoring you because you are not worth the effort of formulating a reply and shall continue to ignore you whenever you appear here</p>
<p></p> *sobs* that hurt my feeling b…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-16:2182797:Comment:19534282012-05-16T00:28:01.542ZSpitterhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/sp1tt3r
<p>*sobs* that hurt my feeling booklover, my one lonely feeling. I will not be leaving the site soon, I've been here for like 3 or 4 years already. Please post the link to the definition of a schmuck please, it's the least you can do.</p>
<p>*sobs* that hurt my feeling booklover, my one lonely feeling. I will not be leaving the site soon, I've been here for like 3 or 4 years already. Please post the link to the definition of a schmuck please, it's the least you can do.</p> "they" need to prove that or…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-15:2182797:Comment:19531652012-05-15T19:30:24.140ZShawnhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Shawn257
"they" need to prove that or "their" belief is "unjustified" Damn I hate this stupid iPhone.
"they" need to prove that or "their" belief is "unjustified" Damn I hate this stupid iPhone. Atheism is not a matter of fa…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-05-15:2182797:Comment:19531612012-05-15T19:21:04.035ZNapoleon Bonapartehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/napoleonbonaparte
<p>Atheism is not a matter of faith.</p>
<p>Faith does not require logic, reason, rationality or free-thinking.</p>
<p>Unlike religious people, Atheists should think for themselves.</p>
<p>''On ne devient pas athée par souhait'</p>
<p>Napoleon Bonaparte</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Atheism is not a matter of faith.</p>
<p>Faith does not require logic, reason, rationality or free-thinking.</p>
<p>Unlike religious people, Atheists should think for themselves.</p>
<p>''On ne devient pas athée par souhait'</p>
<p>Napoleon Bonaparte</p>
<p> </p>